The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
In a move that could see new laws passed against gay and lesbian couples, one lesbian couple from Australia are attempting to sue their doctor after one of them fell pregnant with twin girls after paying for IVF. The reason for the anger is that they asked the doctor for only one child and they believe that their rights include the hospital paying for private schooling and general fees involved in bringing up the second child.
This will almost certainly cause a reaction within the legal system as to the rights of same sex couples to not only choose their children but even having rights to medical treatment such as IVF.
In my opinion, this couple are being completely unreasonable in expecting payment because they had 2 children instead of one, surely the fact that they had children in the first place when others could not is enough? Other people who have children naturally don't get to make such choices.
What does everyone else think?
This will almost certainly cause a reaction within the legal system as to the rights of same sex couples to not only choose their children but even having rights to medical treatment such as IVF.
In my opinion, this couple are being completely unreasonable in expecting payment because they had 2 children instead of one, surely the fact that they had children in the first place when others could not is enough? Other people who have children naturally don't get to make such choices.
What does everyone else think?
Page:
FantasyMeister wrote:
> iggvopvantoodlewin wrote:
> I write that i do not know what you mean because i know
> nothing about what the childless couples statement pertains
> to in terms of law but did you actually write that development
> in law, science and ethics (haha?) is more important by
> sufficient orders that what we have is 'a shame'.
>
> English is my first language but this sentence/question doesn't
> make a lot of sense so it's hard to reply.
Very true, what what ;).
The reason I have written that I do not know what you mean is because I have not bothered to read about the statement made by the parents and further to this I really have no idea about the laws governing these matters.
Despite my lack of knowledge on the subject I still somehow feel justified to question if the situation should really be noted down in a way that indicates the outcome will be 'a shame' for the parents involved but then suggesting 'hey never mind' since the important part is the progress. My haha? was to indicate I then pretended that you used the word ethics as a joke.
To me it does not seem like progress it seems like stepping backwards. There are a variety of reasons why I could argue my feeling that it is a step backwards but I think the important one (or the only one that would make sense to even one other person) is that the media, the government and society seem to feed each other and become completely frivolous. The reason it is a problem is because I am forced to participate (the word LAW was brought up), so I am forced to pay some attention, so I am forced to make ridiculous hypothetical judgements regarding the situation and that I really hate doing.
>
> If it's any help with re-reading what I said, the lesbian
> couple's twins are 3 years old and 2 minutes before she was
> implanted the mother, who had previously signed a form of
> consent for the implantation of two embryos, stated verbally
> that she only wanted one embryo implanted, a request which the
> attendant staff didn't act upon.
Since the children are a product (it appears to me) given that they are asking for what sounds like a refund rather than just a little help from their community in terms of a friendly neighbourhood babysitter I am not inclined to think that it is the doctors fault. True the extra information I did not have but then as it is a 'product' that we are talking about (yes I feel ill just having to write that) then perhaps verbal contract is pushing it a bit since I always get asked for a receipt when I take things back to a shop.
>
> There are so many permutations here for the law to take into
> account, like what right did the embryo that was to be rejected
> have to life if it was going to be discarded at the last minute,
> what right did the consultant have to force an abortion after the
> incorrect implantation, what takes precendence, the signed
> written agreement or the unfulfilled verbal agreement, what
> right does the hospital have to force the implantation
> regardless of a verbal request, what right did the mother to be
> have to discard an awaiting embryo in the first place.
I cannot stretch myself to consider these points even half as much as would be required for a sensible answer. My response (from the first posting) was provoked not actually by the situation just by the fact that this could possibly be forced upon society as a whole.
Selfish? well maybe I am being quite selfish but in answer to that I would like to think that if I lived next door to a couple who were amiable and neighbourly things could be as they might have once been so much so that offering actual help rather than just taxes to pay compensation for a product that they got on buy one get one surprisingly (though not really since I think I heard that this type of thing happens with IVF) free would be an option.
>
> There are no precedents for this case in Australia. Plenty of
> examples of women changing their minds at the last minute,
> though.
I am not trying to have a dig at you or your response, not really. The problem for me is that the whole thing just seems to be completely crazy and this happens more and more all the time.
> iggvopvantoodlewin wrote:
> I write that i do not know what you mean because i know
> nothing about what the childless couples statement pertains
> to in terms of law but did you actually write that development
> in law, science and ethics (haha?) is more important by
> sufficient orders that what we have is 'a shame'.
>
> English is my first language but this sentence/question doesn't
> make a lot of sense so it's hard to reply.
Very true, what what ;).
The reason I have written that I do not know what you mean is because I have not bothered to read about the statement made by the parents and further to this I really have no idea about the laws governing these matters.
Despite my lack of knowledge on the subject I still somehow feel justified to question if the situation should really be noted down in a way that indicates the outcome will be 'a shame' for the parents involved but then suggesting 'hey never mind' since the important part is the progress. My haha? was to indicate I then pretended that you used the word ethics as a joke.
To me it does not seem like progress it seems like stepping backwards. There are a variety of reasons why I could argue my feeling that it is a step backwards but I think the important one (or the only one that would make sense to even one other person) is that the media, the government and society seem to feed each other and become completely frivolous. The reason it is a problem is because I am forced to participate (the word LAW was brought up), so I am forced to pay some attention, so I am forced to make ridiculous hypothetical judgements regarding the situation and that I really hate doing.
>
> If it's any help with re-reading what I said, the lesbian
> couple's twins are 3 years old and 2 minutes before she was
> implanted the mother, who had previously signed a form of
> consent for the implantation of two embryos, stated verbally
> that she only wanted one embryo implanted, a request which the
> attendant staff didn't act upon.
Since the children are a product (it appears to me) given that they are asking for what sounds like a refund rather than just a little help from their community in terms of a friendly neighbourhood babysitter I am not inclined to think that it is the doctors fault. True the extra information I did not have but then as it is a 'product' that we are talking about (yes I feel ill just having to write that) then perhaps verbal contract is pushing it a bit since I always get asked for a receipt when I take things back to a shop.
>
> There are so many permutations here for the law to take into
> account, like what right did the embryo that was to be rejected
> have to life if it was going to be discarded at the last minute,
> what right did the consultant have to force an abortion after the
> incorrect implantation, what takes precendence, the signed
> written agreement or the unfulfilled verbal agreement, what
> right does the hospital have to force the implantation
> regardless of a verbal request, what right did the mother to be
> have to discard an awaiting embryo in the first place.
I cannot stretch myself to consider these points even half as much as would be required for a sensible answer. My response (from the first posting) was provoked not actually by the situation just by the fact that this could possibly be forced upon society as a whole.
Selfish? well maybe I am being quite selfish but in answer to that I would like to think that if I lived next door to a couple who were amiable and neighbourly things could be as they might have once been so much so that offering actual help rather than just taxes to pay compensation for a product that they got on buy one get one surprisingly (though not really since I think I heard that this type of thing happens with IVF) free would be an option.
>
> There are no precedents for this case in Australia. Plenty of
> examples of women changing their minds at the last minute,
> though.
I am not trying to have a dig at you or your response, not really. The problem for me is that the whole thing just seems to be completely crazy and this happens more and more all the time.
Or sell it to a Chinese restaurant as a you-know-what. Hey, it's what Bender would do!
Maybe they can give one child to another lesbian couple, saving a fortune on IVF treatment that will no longer be required...
FantasyMeister wrote:
> Plenty of
> examples of women changing their minds at the last minute,
> though.
Generally accepted as universal law, isn't it?
> Plenty of
> examples of women changing their minds at the last minute,
> though.
Generally accepted as universal law, isn't it?
FantasyMeister wrote:
> Plenty of
> examples of women changing their minds at the last minute,
> though.
Generally accepted as universal law, isn't it?
> Plenty of
> examples of women changing their minds at the last minute,
> though.
Generally accepted as universal law, isn't it?
iggvopvantoodlewin wrote:
> I write that i do not know what you mean because i know
> nothing about what the childless couples statement pertains
> to in terms of law but did you actually write that development
> in law, science and ethics (haha?) is more important by
> sufficient orders that what we have is 'a shame'.
English is my first language but this sentence/question doesn't make a lot of sense so it's hard to reply.
If it's any help with re-reading what I said, the lesbian couple's twins are 3 years old and 2 minutes before she was implanted the mother, who had previously signed a form of consent for the implantation of two embryos, stated verbally that she only wanted one embryo implanted, a request which the attendant staff didn't act upon.
There are so many permutations here for the law to take into account, like what right did the embryo that was to be rejected have to life if it was going to be discarded at the last minute, what right did the consultant have to force an abortion after the incorrect implantation, what takes precendence, the signed written agreement or the unfulfilled verbal agreement, what right does the hospital have to force the implantation regardless of a verbal request, what right did the mother to be have to discard an awaiting embryo in the first place.
There are no precedents for this case in Australia. Plenty of examples of women changing their minds at the last minute, though.
> I write that i do not know what you mean because i know
> nothing about what the childless couples statement pertains
> to in terms of law but did you actually write that development
> in law, science and ethics (haha?) is more important by
> sufficient orders that what we have is 'a shame'.
English is my first language but this sentence/question doesn't make a lot of sense so it's hard to reply.
If it's any help with re-reading what I said, the lesbian couple's twins are 3 years old and 2 minutes before she was implanted the mother, who had previously signed a form of consent for the implantation of two embryos, stated verbally that she only wanted one embryo implanted, a request which the attendant staff didn't act upon.
There are so many permutations here for the law to take into account, like what right did the embryo that was to be rejected have to life if it was going to be discarded at the last minute, what right did the consultant have to force an abortion after the incorrect implantation, what takes precendence, the signed written agreement or the unfulfilled verbal agreement, what right does the hospital have to force the implantation regardless of a verbal request, what right did the mother to be have to discard an awaiting embryo in the first place.
There are no precedents for this case in Australia. Plenty of examples of women changing their minds at the last minute, though.
I do not perceive this as being similar or appropriate really but for some reason i remembered something which i had heard more than 10 years ago, i hope this link is reliable. AND NO THIS IS NOT A COMMENTARY ON ANYTHING ANYONE HAS SAID JUST SOMETHING THAT CAME TO MIND
The "Oh dear" is no stranger tot his forum.
Oh dear.
Oh dear.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> It's just a case of current law trying to keep up with
> advancements in science/medicine. There are lots of similar
> cases each year, and each one usually has to end up as a 'test
> case' because there's no precendent, as this one probably will.
********STOP*********
In this case it seems not at all to be science and medicine that are the matter in question unless the doctor chooses to say yes it was my fault i did it on purpose or to say it is the cause of a not yet perfect process (i vaguely recall hearing something about the statistics of IVF and twins in which case the situation was not entirely out of the blue for the parents).
But since the parents are willing to suggest that an unexpected twin deserves a refund for the bother it will cause them then maybe the doctor could be of the same breed so as to say... ah yes, terribly sorry about that have an abortion and second course of IVF for free.
after all the colour coded family range buggy with ISO9289348 safety certification and neo thermal uber fabric was just for one child and lets not forget what is important here.
I expect that this means there will be another tick box on the IVF form..... and it just might, read tick here if you agree to the ebay terms and conditions for the auctioning of excess babies.
>
> Whilst it would be a shame to see childless couples affected by
> any ruling or lawmaking as a result, the important thing is that
> law and science, as well as ethics, continually develop.
I am not quite sure what you mean by that but you seem void of reason or do I mean feeling. Tell me I am a nit wit and read you incorrectly?
I write that i do not know what you mean because i know nothing about what the childless couples statement pertains to in terms of law but did you actually write that development in law, science and ethics (haha?) is more important by sufficient orders that what we have is 'a shame'.
Have I missed the point entirely?
I suppose for me this reply posting is really focusing on how meaningless everything seems to become, and is fuled by the notion that there may be a few things that mark the breaking point for the wave which cascades through all of our lives and wears everything to nothing. Or in other words the shame seems to be when children become like a Sony Playstation.
>
> The overall result will usually be of benefit to mankind as a
> whole.
You could (do you?) work for the governments spin down department with sentences like that.
>
> In this particular case there are too many unanswered questions
> to be able to comment specifically, leave it up to the experts.
Agreed, but then personally I find this to be the case almost every time with matters so personal yet put out to the world.
> It's just a case of current law trying to keep up with
> advancements in science/medicine. There are lots of similar
> cases each year, and each one usually has to end up as a 'test
> case' because there's no precendent, as this one probably will.
********STOP*********
In this case it seems not at all to be science and medicine that are the matter in question unless the doctor chooses to say yes it was my fault i did it on purpose or to say it is the cause of a not yet perfect process (i vaguely recall hearing something about the statistics of IVF and twins in which case the situation was not entirely out of the blue for the parents).
But since the parents are willing to suggest that an unexpected twin deserves a refund for the bother it will cause them then maybe the doctor could be of the same breed so as to say... ah yes, terribly sorry about that have an abortion and second course of IVF for free.
after all the colour coded family range buggy with ISO9289348 safety certification and neo thermal uber fabric was just for one child and lets not forget what is important here.
I expect that this means there will be another tick box on the IVF form..... and it just might, read tick here if you agree to the ebay terms and conditions for the auctioning of excess babies.
>
> Whilst it would be a shame to see childless couples affected by
> any ruling or lawmaking as a result, the important thing is that
> law and science, as well as ethics, continually develop.
I am not quite sure what you mean by that but you seem void of reason or do I mean feeling. Tell me I am a nit wit and read you incorrectly?
I write that i do not know what you mean because i know nothing about what the childless couples statement pertains to in terms of law but did you actually write that development in law, science and ethics (haha?) is more important by sufficient orders that what we have is 'a shame'.
Have I missed the point entirely?
I suppose for me this reply posting is really focusing on how meaningless everything seems to become, and is fuled by the notion that there may be a few things that mark the breaking point for the wave which cascades through all of our lives and wears everything to nothing. Or in other words the shame seems to be when children become like a Sony Playstation.
>
> The overall result will usually be of benefit to mankind as a
> whole.
You could (do you?) work for the governments spin down department with sentences like that.
>
> In this particular case there are too many unanswered questions
> to be able to comment specifically, leave it up to the experts.
Agreed, but then personally I find this to be the case almost every time with matters so personal yet put out to the world.
It's just a case of current law trying to keep up with advancements in science/medicine. There are lots of similar cases each year, and each one usually has to end up as a 'test case' because there's no precendent, as this one probably will.
Whilst it would be a shame to see childless couples affected by any ruling or lawmaking as a result, the important thing is that law and science, as well as ethics, continually develop.
The overall result will usually be of benefit to mankind as a whole.
In this particular case there are too many unanswered questions to be able to comment specifically, leave it up to the experts.
Whilst it would be a shame to see childless couples affected by any ruling or lawmaking as a result, the important thing is that law and science, as well as ethics, continually develop.
The overall result will usually be of benefit to mankind as a whole.
In this particular case there are too many unanswered questions to be able to comment specifically, leave it up to the experts.
Page: